christianityfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Abortion
If we can't say, "Abortion is wrong" then how can we say anything is wrong? --BenMcLean 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :Who said we can't say Abortion is wrong? This article just looks like it was copied from somewhere and there wern't many edits to it. I could loosly copy a bit from the Evidence Bible on the topic of Abortion if it'll help, it has some verses and stuff. Homestarmy 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC) ::Yes, that would be good. I can't see as how any real Christian could justify infanticide. --BenMcLean 15:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ::Maybe, but let's try to keep this neutral. We're not indoctrinating people here. I remember hearing an argument against the bible having an outright pro-life position. I'll try to dig up that argument. Not that I'm a fan of abortion. abyssal_leviathin 17:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC) :But that's the point: This isn't a neutral site, it's a Christian site. --BenMcLean 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC) I meant within Christinaity there's some debate. If the bible is really pro-life (or pro-choice or pro-anyposition) objectively covering the pros and cons of such will make it obvious. abyssal_leviathin 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) :Does that standard apply to "gay Christians"? The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality in the strongest possible terms. Yet, there are open homosexuals who claim to be Christians. This isn't really a question of neutrality within Christianity as it is a question of what it means to be a Christian, if anything. --BenMcLean 15:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC) ::I'd say yes. We could say something along the lines of "A significant number of homosexuals profess membership in the Christian faith and justify their position based on Christ's teachings on love and tolerance. This is a strange position because everytime homosexuality is mentioned in the bible it is strongly condemned. 'Gay Christians' respond to these accusations by appealing to notions of biblical errancy as littler to no scripture is available to support their ideas." This neutrally covers the facts and the truth is still made obvious. We don't need bias to make people "see the light." abyssal_leviathin 01:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ::I could pull out what the Evidence Bible says on this, though its not exactly the most well known of study-bible type things :). Homestarmy 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC) :::"Bias"? I mean, if this was Wikipedia or something, I'd agree with you, but "bias" really only applies to a POV that claims to be objective. No such statement has been made in site policies as far as I know - in fact, what we have here that I've seen so far is an openly acknowledged bias in favor of Christianity, or in other words, a "Christian Point of View". We have to settle whether people who disregaurd what the Bible says are Christians or not. This gets us into questions of who Christ was and what He taught - I think someone who openly admits that they have no plan or desire to follow what He taught could not be reasonably defined as a Christian. --BenMcLean 15:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) :::I meant bias within Christianity. And didn't the CPOV say that we're not supposed to favor certain denominations or groups? I do see your point about people not wanting to follow teachings and all, but I still think balanced coverage on issues like this will be both informative about what the "wrong" perspective holding people believe, and enlightening about the truth. And doesn't the truth always seem more reliable when presented with solid support rather than a "just because I said so" type deal? I think so. When you see the amount of difference between the support pro0vided in the article's "Biblical Support of the Pro-life Position" and "Biblical Support for a Pro-Choice Position" the reader should be able to draw he right conclusion rather quickly. On an unrelated note, I've observed that nobody responded to my idea of embedding links to relevent articles within the biblical text. I think this would be a great idea. Any comments?abyssal_leviathin 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC) ::::I don't think I can agree with your idea, if we make articles concerning "for" and "against", I think it will give the impression that the Bible flip-flops, that's not exactly very exibitive of the inspired word of God. The Bible has a clear position on this issue, and as far as I know, any pro-choice arguments people try to come up with pretty much always stem from out-of-context stuff. I think the problem is that this Wiki is still relatively new and there's only like, what, three of us, so the quality of most articles we write ourselves are for now basically just saying "This is how it is", because nobody's gotten around to citing all the support for stuff yet. Homestarmy 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I don't think balanced coverage of conflicting issues handled properly would end up implying anything about the bible, just implying things about humans' (in)ability to interpret it. ^_^ abyssal_leviathin 00:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)